Adobe announces record-breaking $1.84 billion in revenue for Q3

To be honest Affinity is not even close to the capabilities of Photoshop. It lacks many advanced features like calculations, good scripting, and many more.

I have an Adobe free Mac for the first time since Photoshop 2.5 (they were the good old days of genuine innovation). Never thought that would happen.

@Fujica: Affinity Photo does have equations:
https://vimeo.com/192598897

bullcrap. they were already fine without the subscription model, so bootlegging can't be the reason.

If you are dishonest then you can still steal a copy of CC and install and use it.
In my view this is theft and while it is OK for a test period (which is why Adobe give a free month for test) using it to make money or prevent paying for longer term use is dishonest.
I have used Photoshop since 1993 but stopped paying for upgrades when they moved to subscription only for my Design Studio CS6. I have repeatedly asked Adobe to move to a dual model, or to make ACR a stand-alone purchasable product but they say no. This leaves me no option but to look for alternatives e.g. CaptureOne Pro which is excellent for small edits and RAW image processing but not as good as Photoshop CS6/CC for complex work.

Ed that is pure horse shix

Exactly. Subscription and service are not the same thing. Nice try though!

rurik,
I guess you must be on a windows machine with low res screen. On the Mac CS6 is currently the only game in town for el capitan and above.

Yes Windows 10. But why low res? Is 1920x1080 low?

photomedium, I am both on Windows 7 and on Mac (latest OS). Indeed, I bought my Mac originally specifically to run Photoshop CS6 when Adobe first announced the new subscription model. I instantly bought the software both for PC and Mac, my first update since Photosop 7 (which I still run on one of my machines).

Brian

I am running CS6 on el capitan and I don't dare update to sierra.

I'm running CS6 on Sierra and there's no problem, But I don't know whether there's going to be a problem on High Sierra. But if I buy a new camera, then Adobe Raw is going to stop working, right?

zoetMB, so sierra works, good! I think you are right, raw support will be the first thing to go. Anyways, sooner rather than later cs6 will be 'hard' phased out, meaning after a MAC-OS update cs6 will stop working, then the apple site will be flooded with comments for a while, some will retire of old age and everybody will sheepishly get CC.

Try Affinity Pro. One-off, low payment. Excellent software, amazingly capable and slick interface. And to my knowledge, it opens all those non-DNG files.

I have a brand new camera and I don't use Adobe at all.

http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows

@tkbslc: Forced to upgrade if you are using Adobe software.

PS: Yes, I know of DNG Converter.

You aren't making sense. Just stop being an Adobe user if you wish.

@tkbslc: I am already Affinity (both Photo and Designer) user.

Image-wise C1 is great. File management though ...

Yep, and there's also another bunch of apps you can use in combination with it, but I like an all-in-one solution that just works. This is just a hobby for me, would likely be different if it was my job. Even if C1's was just decent, that would be better, but it's a kludge at best. Because they also sell Media Pro and are a small shop, that may not change in the near future.

I am very much ONLY talking about its file management in the catalog features being a kludge. It was designed to be session-based, and then catalog features have been bolted on. That is what is kludgy.

Appwise, meaning things like Photo Mechanic.

I know that the Catalog is what makes Lightroom appealing to most, but I wish there was a way that Adobe could separate the catalog (so those that don't like LR's editing system) could just use the Catalog portion to catalog, tag, and organize their photos, and then use another program like PS to do their actual editing. I know that was the purpose of Bridge to an extent, which they pretty much stopped developing,b ut it would be nice if they would bring back something like that, and then have LIghtroom only be an editing suite, that could technically work with the Catalog, but the Catalog would NOT be integrated into LR itself. That, in my eyes, would be wonderful, as I tend to use PS more than LR for editing (about 70% PS and 30% LR).

@Vik2012, I've been trying various applications for many years, but most of them are just a little too clunky and lack the features that I do appreciate about LR and BR.

Right now one of my favorites is FastRawViewer, but honestly if I'm only working on my own files from my own Nikon cameras, Nikon View NX is my go-to application. It's pretty amazing.

I have always preferred Bridge with Photoshop. Efficient workflow. Never liked Lightroom. Especially the importing business/

Mike - no it doesn't. It's $14.29/month. That includes Lightroom and Photoshop CC
It's only $28.59 if you only choose one app, which wouldn't make any sense.

Of course it is being pirated but on a smaller scale. The threshold to legally use the software is much much lower so people have less incentive to use pirated version. This argument of course is not valid for the poor countries where $10 is still big money. Every imaginable kind of software is pirated in Russia and China - no doubt about that. But even in those countries businesses are much more likely to use legal software compared to 20 years ago.

We aren't doubting it being pirated, we're just saying that its probably more difficult to pirate. I believe that a decent good percentage of copies running on machines today are not legit copies. I too always made it a point to own legal copies of software as the risks of using illegal/cracked/pirated copies just isn't worth it (and some have malware embedded them--of which, may or may not harm or even alarm the user of its existence). Again, for that reason alone, it's just not worth it to pirate in my view.

Good point @georgievv but in a (digital) economy with increasing returns to scale it favors the producer disproportionally. Good for Adobe but for me the consumer - in the long run - its too costly. Especially when not using their cloud services. Paying for something I never asked for.

Making the switch these days to http://affinity.serif.com :)

If it wasn't for those young pirates Adobe especial Photoshop would not have been so popular. Besides anyone who can't afford to buy Photoshop and pirates it is not lost revenue but potential future customer when they can afford it.

Strange, since the amount of highlight/shadow recovery is completely determined by you. If you can process your images to look realistic that's your own shortcoming, not the software's.

Will DEFINITELY look into that. Can they open PSD files? .ai files?
if so, I'm in.

Cameron you might want to read the affinity DPR review posted recently. Under cons:

Good, but not comprehensive, .psd file support

"I hire people and recognise that talent is not something you need a subscription for."

Well, except that you've subscribed to them.

"I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I probably wasn't clear enough"

It was just a joke. :-)

Adobes increased growth would suggest you like many are in the majority.

And you’re point?

thanks will look into it. Do they have lens profiles and do they update them?

>> LR surely needs a speed bump!

They promised it recently.

Matt are you making standard sized previews the size of your monitor (which would be the auto setting)? Even going a bit bigger or smaller can cause lag on my machines but at the right resolution they're fine. For reference I've used the latest version on a i7-2670QM, i7-7700HQ, and Xeon W3690.

There are bigger things to worry about in this world than Adobe and it's subscription model. I'd be more worried about the recent Equifax hack than what the heck Adobe is doing, how much revenue they have generated over the past year/quarter, or whatever. Really, people. If you don't like Adobe, or their subscription model, go get something else and stop whining. Afinity (just reviewed on DPR) seems to be a good alternative to those who don't like PS/LR or Adobe. Switching isn't impossible. There are options out there to help with this. To me, it sounds like people just don't want the hassle. That's the downside to buying into any system (Nikon or canon, Adobe or On1, etc). It's a pain to switch, but usually can be done.

@sirhawkeye64
But ... I'm on dpreview, not financialservicesreview. At least I'm whining about something photographic that affects photographers and not bitching about what other people choose to talk about (which affects nobody).
It's easy to say "if you don't like it, don't buy it" (I can just as easily say "if you don't like what I'm saying, ignore it" ... just rolls of the fingers) but if a few people complaining about the downsides of a subscription model (as many have explained, it's more than cost) cause a few more people to be aware of something they weren't, and they warn a few others away, then we'll have a small impact. And maybe it's all the complaining that's driving competitors to intentionally advertise "No subscription fees ever" ... maybe if it weren't for the complaining, they wouldn't see the opportunity. Things get better when people make each other aware of problems, not when they passively accept everything. Worst case, I'm shouting into the wind.

The issue that I see that people are eventually going to run into (or maybe they have already) with this mentality of "I hate X product because of this so I'm switching" is they will keep jumping ship from one product or platform to another simply because don't like this or that about a program, or a program is now a subscription when it used to be a perpetual license (there is nothing wrong with this, but think about the time and effort involved). It is conceivably possibly that even if you buy a piece of software outright (perpetual license) the developer still can choose not to update it, or update it as much as Adobe updates their under the subscription model, so really that's what it sounds like the problem is, more the updates (or lack of) than the subscription & that Adobe reports high revenues. Google, Microsoft, and perhaps Apple probably did too too, but that's my perception of why people are angry about.

@sirhawkeye64
Yup - the grass isn't necessarily greener. One relatively obvious alternative to LR is C1Pro - it has a prescribed method for moving your catalog over. They're pretty big and likely to stay around a while. The software also isn't cheap, so may not be what people choose if they object to subscription pricing. And there's no guarantee they won't move to a subscription model. It seems like more and more companies are trying to take advantage of anti-subscription sentiment, but to me, they feel like early mirrorless - lots of promise, most of the way there, but not ready for prime time. And then, if they don't go subscription, what happens when they're not making money. Especially if Adobe keeps all the people were willing to pony up for updates, and these companies attract all the cheapskates !
I can object for now, but I'm not "all in" on it ... I can see the shades of gray in it and could very well end up subscribing, myself, down the road.

I've considered C1Pro in the past, and as long as they have a way to port your catalog over (without losing edits) then it may remain a viable option for those who dislike Adobe and/or their subscription model (or subscription models in general). But my question is how much longer will C1Pro continue to have a non-subscription option? I see now they offer a subscription option too. Some people might jump to that, and before they know it, they are forced to get a subscription too. Maybe, maybe not it's hard to tell. I don't really know what the big fuss is. Even if you buy a perpetual license, the company (such as Adobe) could still post $1.8B in revenue.

Plus, people, please realize that that's just REVENUE (only half the equation). Their costs could be $1.6b & net only $200m profit (very unlikely scenario due to their size and user base). What if PhaseOne posts $500m in revenue but their costs are only $150m... making profits three times over?

I strongly believe part of this anger also comes from the fact that Adobe posted a large amount of revenue, and maybe their innovation is lacking a bit (updates). But if it's mostly because of the revenue (be honest with yourself as to why you hate the subscriptions so much) you only see half the story.

I guess if what Dennis is saying about C1 Pro making it easy to switch (ie tools to import your LR catalog without much fuss I'm assuming), I sort of don't know why some of those who are complaining that adobe is horrible and C1 is so much better, then why don't you switch? I honestly feel that some of people on here so against the subscriptions with Adobe don't make the switch if it's so easy. I honestly feel that some of you WANT to keep your Adobe subscriptions so you have something to complain about.

But in the end, as with mos things, you give up something to gain something else. C1 (or other apps) might be faster, but it may lack some features too at the same time.

scotthunter.. that's interesting and I agree. I raely, if ever, use Lightroom. My choice is Bridge, ACR and Photoshop.

@Marty4650
I am not even sure why casual user would need a product like LR. Its workflow is specifically designed to work well for a heavy user.
I am sure there are options out there that are actually better for casual users and are cheaper.

>> Adobe's revenue stream is guaranteed

You are wrong: not guaranteed. Subscription does not guarantee revenue stream. It only evens it out and spreads it out over development cycle. But the revenue still depends on a number of users for whom the product is relevant. There is nothing guaranteed here. Pressure is still on from both users and the competition and Adobe still innovates. It is just that where it innovates is not to everyone's liking. E.g. not everyone needs those mobile apps.
At the moment LR is still relevant for me and I am not planning on switching. However, I want to see what they will do on promised performance improvements and hopefully they learnt enough from recent development of mobile apps were performance is corner stone.

I was talking about Photoshop, and not Lightroom.

I realize Adobe bundles it all together in their CC subscription, but not everyone needs every Adobe tool. You might, but many others don't.

My point was that we don't have the option to buy the software any more. It is "take it or leave it" or "find something else." This might work out great for Adobe and great for the people who were buying every upgrade but it doesn't work best for everyone.

Of course I understand why Adobe has done this. Those heavy users generate a lot more revenue than the casual users do. And no one can deny their subscription only service has done wonders for their bottom line.

>> My point was that we don't have the option to buy the software any more

Subscription is that option. The model is different but you still buy the right to use software but not the copyright.
I understand you are talking about perpetual license for some soon to be old version of software but it is different to having no option "to buy software" which really means "buy the right to use".

>> it doesn't work best for everyone

No solution ever works best for everyone. Including LR and PS are not necessarily being the best for everyone. For many they are too complex and they would benefit from simpler software.
If you truly believe it is not for you then may be you can do better creating a discussion on alternatives to LR and PS.

I agree there should be an option to buy the software outright. or perhaps an Ala Carte option where you pay a set amount ($100) for the base program, and then if you want an "update" plan, you can opt to pay say $25 per year to receive any new updates, and can cancel at any time (but you would not get any more updates for the version of LR you have). If a new version came out, you would, however, have to buy the upgrade for that, but at least you could keep using the version you originally purchased as long as you'd like, and not be "forced" to upgrade. Me personally, I don't mind the subscription, as it always gives me the latest versions, bug fixes and improvements (both LR and PS) for $11 per month (tax included) and I don't really have to worry about checking for updates myself or if I should buy the next new version or not.

Furthremore, most software companies are going subscription. MS will end Office perpetual licenses in the near future, and I wouldn't be surprised if Windows itself became a subscription-based model, where you pay $25 per year and you get the latest version of Windows as long as your subscription is current. All anti-virus programs are pretty much like that, as well as many others. Unfortunately the subscription model is the new thing in the software industry because it makes things more affordable to people, and it also can reasonably guarantee a steady revenue for the developer, so in a way, both can win, plus you scale licenses up/down as needed if you're a company. Not everyone could shell out $700 for Photoshop all at one time when you could get a standalone license, or worse, the entire CS for $2000-3000+. But now you can get the entire CS for $50 per month... that's partially why I think Adobe went w/ subscriptions (averaged over 5yrs you probably would pay about the same.

Really, think about it - purchasing software doesn't really make sense. Where is the company's incentive for bug and security fixes? How do you stop someone from making copies and giving them to everyone they know? Why make someone pay hundreds of dollars for something they just want to try out? When do you release something and say it is "done"? All these problems and more are solved by going subscription. It is not simply a greed thing, but also much easier to do business in general (for a software company).

I have to disagree. Most of your answers are just off the cuff which I understand as this is not a great forum to discuss these matters. Piracy is much more prevalent with owned copies. It requires no shady dealings and was widespread before subscriptions came. I would guess more people had pirated copies than actually paid. Trial versions are an annoyance and a pain to everyone involved (especially the developing company). All I can say is that the subscription model makes life easier for everyone involved much beyond the money. Even the money is easier to deal with - think of the difficulty for a software company having to launch a new product every year and hope the budgeting is done correctly to employ the right number of developers (along with the other actual new products it wants to release). With a subscription, these guys have their salaries covered and there is less guesswork.

I think PeteQuad has a bit of a point. It's harder to pirate a subscription-based software program. You might get away with it for a month or so, perhaps a bit longer, but at some point, it will shut down or you will possibly get caught. However, the point about trial software being a pain for the developer isn't always the case. In many cases, trial software is actually the same as the original software, but just has features disabled until a valid key is entered (ie. software is purchased). In fact, I think a lot of companies do that now (show you what you COULD access/do with the paid version, but make you pay up to access those features). It's annoying to consumers, but I actually think developers don't mind having a trial version. It allows people to try-before-you-buy, rather than do I want to spend $100 on a piece of SW. Without a trial, many would probably say it's too much risk (unless they offered a money-back guarantee, which some do, others don't).

Hello again Pete. True, this is not a great forum for explanation, but I'll try.

I’ve spent decades in technology, software development as well as design. So, I'd say my "off the cuff" reply come from a reasonably well worn cuff.

I am assuming you are taking about Adobe CC software subscriptions here, not other kinds of software as a service run through browsers or shells.

Trust me. Piracy of Adobe products today is as big a problem as at any time in the past. Bigger perhaps, as no one has to rip discs to upload the files anymore.

I know because I clamp down on dodgy software on our business computers. I have zero tolerance for an employee attempting to get around a licence or exposing us to such a liability.

It takes seconds to find the dodgy versions and installation is literally as fast or faster than signing up to Adobe subscription! (NOTE: I am a strictly pay for what you use and find an alternative for what you can't afford, person.)

Continued in Part 2...

... Part 2

Trial versions are exactly the same for any online distribution, subscription or not. Both are installed on your machine. Subscription just means you have to allow software to phone home periodically to verify the license or it will stop working and notify you to renew.

In maintenance, there is no difference between a product that updates itself online and one that you paid for on subscription other than your decision to allow the subscription company to tap your account for their recurring fee rather than you buying a new major version when you want.

The key difference to note is that with a subscription, they kill your application when you cancel your subscription renewal. That means no more working with their proprietary file formats in that software or access to content stored on their cloud.

Finally, from a software development lifecycle and publishing point of view, the process is identical, as very few "buy to own" applications are shipped on disc these days.

@sirhawkeye64 Anti piracy security is a common argument in favour of subscription, but that is not how the software or distribution works.

I cannot, for obvious reasons, get into a discussion on how it is compromised, but let's just say it is no different a problem in the end from pre-subscription days.

I don't even like pointing people in a direction to research the topic, but I can't stop people from finding out if they want to.

The difficulty level you mention is not above those who know most and once compromised (usually within hours of a major release of a popular application), everyone else takes the end result of their efforts as if it was a photo you downloaded from this site. Again I do NOT condone that.

I'm not condoning it either. I'm not doubting that it's not a problem, as i know darn well it still is but I think subscriptions make this a bit harder to accomplish for those looking for "free" software. Yes it is a valid problem and still will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I wasn't implying that subscriptions greatly reduced that issue, but that it helps in the battle against piracy.

I'm to am a person of "pay the price for the product or find a legit alternative" (meaning find a program that is legitimately free, for example, Gimp rather than rip off Adobe). But unfortunately, I still know people who use illegal copies of Windows, illegal copies of earlier Adobe CS products (pre-subscription, like CS2), etc.

@sirhawkeye64 OK. I am not going to get through on this one apparently. Nor should I be concerned if no one except the techies and younger, nimble fingered browser users know. LOL

I too have spent decades in the industry but didn't want to mention since it is an obvious appeal to authority fallacy. But I will say that among the dozens (hundreds?) of folks I have known that owned Photoshop in the past, none of them payed the hundreds of dollars for it, but I do now know several that pay the subscription. This is just a single experience, but I would be surprised if everyone is bothering to pirate stuff that only costs $10 now (instead of hundreds). Yes, I agree there are kids that still run around pirating everything just to do it and because they have no money.
There is also more to maintaining trial versions that you let on, with feature locks and such - and not just from the technical aspect - for a large company all of this stuff requires constant (and annoying) discussion.

I think Apple and Microsoft are at the top of this list. I don't yet consider Adobe robbing people yet. At $10 per month for PS and LR isn't that bad in my opinion. Paying 3x for an Apple MacBook Pro (same/very similar hardware specs) versus one from Dell with almost the same hardware specs (minus MacOS of course) for about 1/3 of the price sounds more like robbery to me on Apple's part. Yeah, you can make the argument its like the BMW of the computer industry, but still. I bet Apple pays almost the same price (if not less) than Dell or Lenovo or HP does to Intel for the CPUs.